Talk:Archie Battersbee case

Reporting Restriction Order (RRO)

From the sources I have read so far, it is not clear when the RRO, prohibiting any of the parties to the case from being identified, was lifted. Has anyone seen this mentioned? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:06, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The parties to the case are public domain. The RRO prohibits any information which may identify or assist to identify health professionals or carers who have provided treatment/care or even a second opinion relating to the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.32.12 (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

There are two RROs, the first regarding the parties to the case (para 18 in citation [1]), and the second regarding the health professionals involved (para 19, citation [1]). “The order originally also applied to the CAFCASS Guardian. However, after it was made, the Guardian did not pursue anonymisation for herself and she was named in my judgment published on 13 May 2022. The RRO remains in force and I have anonymised the doctors and other healthcare professionals whose evidence I have summarised below. For the avoidance of doubt, assuming compliance with the RRO and subject to any future alteration to it, the provisions of s12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 have not and shall not apply to reporting of the hearings concerning Archie” (from para 19, citation [1]). That citation freely names the family side parties to the case, without referencing the lifting of the first RRO. The CAFCASS Guardian would be a professional under the second RRO. The comment about section 12(1) does not appear to make sense, as that section provides for reporting to be lawful unless prohibited by the court, which covers both angles. The judgement contains wording that is sometimes emotional and not always precise. Freddie Orrell (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The question remains unanswered. The first of the two RROs, "any of the parties to the case", is ignored by the courts and media. So when was it lifted? The second RRO, "the health professionals involved", has apparently been waived by certain witnesses and the CAFCASS Guardian, but otherwise seems to remain in place. But the first is the issue. Not my area of knowledge - so how does an RRO get lifted, and when did this happen to the first one? Freddie Orrell (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The judgment made on 13 June [1] in paras 18 & 19 says that the RRO was made originally for at the private court hearing on 4 May and applied to everyone involved; the legislation mentioned is s12(1) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, relating to private court hearings [2]. Looks like there's no formal lifting of restrictions as such, instead for public court hearings the parties are then public domain; para 19 of the judgment on 13 June does confirm though that the RRO remains in force for the doctors and healthcare professionals. IndigoBeach (talk) 10:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, there are two separate and distinct RROs. The 13 June 2022 judgment [1] says in para 18: "on 28th April 2022 ... [a] Reporting Restrictions Order (RRO) prohibiting the identification of any of the parties was made" and in para 19: "On 4th May 2022, a Reporting Restrictions Order (RRO) was made preventing [identification of] any person, doctor or healthcare professional ...". It seems the first lapsed once the parties were identified in a certain court, and the second remains in force except for the CAFCASS Guardian who waived anonymity. The provisions of S12(1) [2] provide both for reporting to be lawful and for reporting to be unlawful - they cannot both apply or neither apply, so the judge's statement does not make sense (either in English or logic). Freddie Orrell (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

From reading all of para 18 of the 13 June 2022 judgment, looks like there's one RRO "A Reporting Restrictions Order (“RRO) prohibiting the identification of any of the parties was made. It came before Morgan J on 4th May 2022..." IndigoBeach (talk) 09:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You have linked the wrong two sentences in Para18: "... it [the case] came before Roberts J on 28th April 2022 when the family was not represented but Archie was joined as a party and a Guardian was appointed. A Reporting Restrictions Order (RRO) prohibiting the identification of any of the parties was made ['the parties' means the people [a] bringing and [b] responding to the case]. It [the case] came before Morgan J on 4th May 2022 ...". Para 19: "On 4th May 2022, a Reporting Restrictions Order (RRO) was made preventing the publishing or broadcasting of any information which identified ... any person, doctor or healthcare professional or other who has cared for or treated Archie and any who have provided a second opinion [The professionals are not parties. They may be witnesses called by the parties, or provide reports, or be named when describing what happened] ... The RRO remains in force and I have anonymised the doctors and other healthcare professionals ..."

The first RRO was made at the first High Court Direction Hearing (not published) on 28 April, and covered the parties.

The second RRO was made at the second High Court Direction Hearing (not published) on 4 May, and covered the professionals.

The parties and the professionals are different. The RROs are different. They were made at different hearings on different dates. Freddie Orrell (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Despite the judge's wording, Ministry of Justice Practice Direction 12I uses 'Reporting Restriction Order' (singular) while the subject is reporting restrictions (plural). I have left quotes verbatim, and changed other text to follow this. Freddie Orrell (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Timeline

We could do with moving more of the prose content from the timeline, and into the body. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The citations in the body need tidying up as well. [2] is particularly overused, even being cited for cases like the ECHR which happened after it was written. News media and court report citations are interspersed randomly; it's a bit of a mess. Freddie Orrell (talk) 08:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Who edited the names here?

One edit changed a name here, has that been undone yet? 2A00:23C6:7F83:D401:949F:4BA1:B98D:9816 (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "ligature over his head"

It was premature to move this section to Talk:Archie Battersbee case/Archive 1#The_phrase_"ligature_over_his_head".

The original issue was the meaning of the word ligature. However the phrase "found with a ligature over his head" in the article does not represent the facts currently understood by sources. I believe it was the wording used in initial news media reports. However that citation has been removed, and the current citation does not use that wording. Further editing has made clear that the incident involved strangling. Specifically, a cord tightened around the neck by force. The high court ("suspended by his neck ... with a dressing gown cord") and coroner's court ("brain injury secondary to strangulation") both state this as matter of fact. The cord may or may not have been put over the head to reach its position, but this is incidental. I will work up an appropriate edit to the article, unless someone else does it first. Freddie Orrell (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC) Edit made Freddie Orrell (talk) 07:16, 16 August 2022 (UTC)